Assessing Innovations from the Market Point of View

  • Hubert Gatignon
  • David Gotteland
  • Christophe Haon


In the previous chapter, we discussed the nature of innovation and its characteristics from the technological point of view. Now we consider the perspective of the market, and especially how the innovation is perceived by its customers. Several theories that have been developed around the notion of the perceptions of an innovation by consumers can be useful to analyze innovations from the market point of view. These perceptions can then explain behavior, especially adoption. In particular, three different behavioral models have been compared: the theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975, Ajzen and Fishbein 1980), innovation diffusion theory (IDT; Rogers 1962), and the technology adoption model (TAM; Davis 1989). Davis, Bagozzi and Warshaw (1989) compare the TAM and TRA models conceptually and empirically. The most general model that applies to any behavior is the TRA, which has received much attention in the marketing literature over the last four decades. Behavioral intentions and consequently behaviors toward an object are the result of attitudes toward this object and of subjective norms. The attitude component is itself made up of the composite of beliefs about the consequences of performing the behavior. These beliefs are weighted according to the evaluation (good-bad) of these consequences.


Corn Microwave Depression Chrome Europe 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aaker, Jennifer L. (1997), “Dimensions of Brand Personality,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abernathy, William J. (1978), The Productivity Dilemma, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Abernathy, William J., and Kim B. Clark (1985), “Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction,” Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agarwal, Ritu, and Jayesh Prasad (1997), “The Role of Innovation Characteristics and Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies,” Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ajzen, I., and M. Fishbein (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Ali, Abdul (2000), “The Impact of Innovativeness and Development Time on New Product Performance for Small Firms,” Marketing Letters, 11(2), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ali, Abdul, Robert Krapfel, and Douglas LaBahn (1995), “Product Innovativeness and Entry Strategy: Impact on Cycle Time and Break-Even Time,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(1), 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson, Philip, and Michael L. Tushman (1990), “Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ansoff, H. Igor (1957), “Strategies for Diversification,” Harvard Business Review, 35(5), 113–124.Google Scholar
  10. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962), “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Inventions,” in R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 609–626.Google Scholar
  11. Baum, Joel A. C., Helaine J. Korn, and Suresh Kotha (1995), “Dominant Designs and Population Dynamics in Telecommunications Services: Founding and Failure of Facsimile Transmission Service Organizations, 1965–1992,” Social Science Research, 24(2), 97–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baumgartner, Hans, and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (1996), “Exploratory Consumer Buying Behavior: Conceptualization and Measurement,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(1), 121–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Booz Allen & Hamilton (1982), New Products for the 1980’s, New York, NY: Booz Allen & Hamilton.Google Scholar
  14. Brunel, Frédéric F., and Rishtee Kumar (2007), “Design and the Big Five: Linking Visual Product Aesthetics to Product Personality,” Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 238–239.Google Scholar
  15. Buzzell, Robert D., and Kenneth Wong (1979), Amana Microwave Ovens, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Case #9–579–182.Google Scholar
  16. Calantone, Roger J., Kwong Chan, and Anna S. Cui (2006), “Decomposing Product Innovativeness and Its Effects on New Product Success,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 408–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Christensen, Clayton M., and Joseph L. Bower (1996), “Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the Failure of Leading Firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, Clayton M., Fernando F. Suárez, and James M. Utterback (1998), “Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries,” Management Science, 44(12), S207–S220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Creusen, Marielle E. H., and Jan P. L. Schoormans (2005), “The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice*,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cusumano, Michael A., Yiorgos Mylonadis, and Richard S. Rosenbloom (1992), “Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta,” The Business History Review, 66(1), 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Danaher, Peter J., Guy W. Mullarkey, and Skander Essegaier (2006), “Factors Affecting Web Site Visit Duration: A Cross-Domain Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Danneels, Erwin, and Elko J. Kleinschmidt (2001), “Product Innovativeness from the Firm’s Perspective: Its Dimensions and Their Relation with Project Selection and Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6), 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Davis, Fred D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology,” MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. DeBruicker, Stewart F., and Harvey Singer (1975), L’Eggs Products, Inc.: (Condensed), Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Case #575–090.Google Scholar
  26. Derbaix, Christian, and Joëlle Vanhamme (2003), “Inducing Word-of-Mouth by Eliciting Surprise: A Pilot Investigation,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(1), 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dosi, Giovanni (1984), Technical Change and Industrial Transformation, New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ellis, Seth Robert (1993), A Psychometric Investigation of a Scale for the Evaluation of the Aesthetic Element in Consumer Durable Goods, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  29. Fang, Eric (2008), “Customer Participation and the Trade-Off between New Product Innovativeness and Speed to Market,” Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  31. Fliegel, Frederick C., and Joseph E. Kivlin (1966), “Attributes of Innovations as Factors in Diffusion,” The American Journal of Sociology, 72(3), 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Flynn, Leisa Reinecke, and Ronald E. Goldsmith (1993), “A Validation of the Goldsmith and Hofacker Innovativeness Scale,” Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(4), 1105–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gatignon, Hubert, Jehoshua Eliashberg, and Thomas S. Robertson (1989), “Modeling Multinational Diffusion Patterns: An Efficient Methodology,” Marketing Science, 8(3), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gatignon, Hubert, and Thomas S. Robertson (1985), “A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gatignon, Hubert, and Thomas S. Robertson (1991), “Innovative Decision Processes,” in H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 316–348.Google Scholar
  36. Gatignon, Hubert, and Jean-Marc Xuereb (1997), “Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance,” Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gielens, Katrijn, and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp (2007), “Drivers of Consumer Acceptance of New Packaged Goods: An Investigation across Products and Countries,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gilbert, Richard J., and David M. G. Newbery (1982), “Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly,” The American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526.Google Scholar
  39. Goldsmith, Ronald E. (2001), “Using the Domain Specific Innovativeness Scale to Identify Internet Consumers,” Internet Research, 11(2), 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goldsmith, Ronald E., Jon B. Freiden, and Jacqueline K. Eastman (1995), “The Generality/Specificity Issue in Consumer Innovativeness Research,” Technovation, 15(10), 601–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Goldsmith, Ronald E., and Charles F. Hofacker (1991), “Measuring consumer innovativeness,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing, 19(3), 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gong, Min, Yan Xu, and Yuecheng Yu (2004), “An Enhanced Technology Acceptance Model for Web-Based Learning,” Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(4), 365–374.Google Scholar
  43. Heany, Donald F. (1983), “Degrees of Product Innovation,” Journal of Business Strategy, 3(4), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henderson, Rebecca M. (1995), “Of Life Cycles Real and Imaginary: The Unexpectedly Long Old Age of Optical Lithography,” Research Policy, 24(4), 631–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hidefjall, Patrik (1997), The Pace of Innovation: Patterns of Innovation in the Cardiac Pacemaker Industry, Linköping, Sweden: Linkoping University.Google Scholar
  46. Hirschman, Elizabeth C. (1980), “Innovativeness, Novelty Seeking, and Consumer Creativity,” The Journal of Consumer Research, 7(3), 283–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holak, Susan L., and Donald R. Lehmann (1990), “Purchase Intentions and the Dimensions of Innovation: An Exploratory Model,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 7(1), 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hurt, H. Thomas, Katherine Joseph, and Chester D. Cook (1977), “Scales for the Measurement of Innovativeness,” Human Communication Research, 4(1), 58–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Iansiti, Marco, and Tarun Khanna (1995), “Technological Evolution, System Architecture and the Obsolescence of Firm Capabilities,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 4(2), 333–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Katz, Elihu, Martin L. Levin, and Herbert Hamilton (1963), “Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovation,” American Sociological Review, 28(2), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. King, William R., and Jun He (2006), “A Meta-Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kleinschmidt, Elko J., and Robert G. Cooper (1991), “The Impact of Product Innovativeness on Performance,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(4), 240–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Labay, Duncan G., and Thomas C. Kinnear (1981), “Exploring the Consumer Decision Process in the Adoption of Solar Energy Systems,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lederer, Albert L., Donna J. Maupin, Mark P. Sena, and Youlong Zhuang (2000), “The Technology Acceptance Model and the World Wide Web,” Decision Support Systems, 29(3), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mandler, George (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in M. S. Clark and S. T. Fisk (Eds.), Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–36.Google Scholar
  56. Menzel, Herbert (1960), “Innovation, Integration, and Marginality: A Survey of Physicians,” American Sociological Review, 25(5), 704–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Alice M. Tybout (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1), 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Midgley, David F., and Grahame R. Dowling (1978), “Innovativeness: The Concept and Its Measurement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 229–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Miller, Roger, Mike Hobday, Thierry Leroux-Demers, and Xavier Olleros (1995), “Innovation in Complex System Industries: The Case of Flight Simulation,” Industrial and Corporate Change, 4(2), 363–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Moldovan, Sarit, Jacob Goldenberg, and Amitava Chattopadhyay (2011), “The Different Roles of Product Originality and Usefulness in Generating Word-of-Mouth,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), 109–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moore, Gary C., and Izak Benbasat (1991), “Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation,” Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Moorman, Christine (1995), “Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 318–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Noble, David F. (1984), Forces of Production, New York, NY: Knopf.Google Scholar
  65. Olson, Eric M., Orville C. Walker Jr. and Robert W. Ruekert (1995), “Organizing for Effective New Product Development: The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 48–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostlund, Lyman E. (1974), “Perceived Innovation Attributes as Predictors of Innovativeness,” The Journal of Consumer Research, 1(2), 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pallister, John G., and Gordon R. Foxall (1998), “Psychometric Properties of the Hurt-Joseph-Cook Scales for the Measurement of Innovativeness,” Technovation, 18(11), 663–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Palmer, Jonathan W. (2002), “Web Site Usability, Design, and Performance Metrics,” Information Systems Research, 13(2), 151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Reinganum, Jennifer F. (1983), “Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly,” The American Economic Review, 73(4), 741–748.Google Scholar
  70. Robertson, Thomas S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and Communication, New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  71. Roehrich, Gilles (2004), “Consumer Innovativeness Concepts and Measurements,” Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 671–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rogers, Everett M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rogers, Everett M. (1976), “New Product Adoption and Diffusion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2(4), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Rogers, Everett M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  75. Rogers, Everett M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  76. Rogers, Everett M., and F. Floyd Shoemaker (1971), Communication of Innovations, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  77. Rosenkopf, Lori, and Michael L. Tushman (1998), “The Coevolution of Community Networks and Technology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry,” Industrial & Corporate Change, 7(2), 311–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ryan, Bryce, and Neal C. Gross (1943), “The Diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities,” Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  79. Saloner, Garth (1990), “Economic Issues in Computer Interface Standardization,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1(1–2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sanderson, Susan, and Mustafa Uzumeri (1995), “Managing Product Families: The Case of the Sony Walkman,” Research Policy, 24(5), 761–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schmitt, Bernd H., and Alex Simonson (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Schreier, Martin, Stefan Oberhauser, and Reinhard Prügl (2007), “Lead Users and the Adoption and Diffusion of New Products: Insights from Two Extreme Sports Communities,” Marketing Letters, 18(1–2), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., and Katrijn Gielens (2003), “Consumer and Market Drivers of the Trial Probability of New Consumer Packaged Goods,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 368–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., Frenkel Ter Hofstede, and Michel Wedel (1999), “A Cross-National Investigation into the Individual and National Cultural Antecedents of Consumer Innovativeness,” Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Suarez, Fernando F., and James M. Utterback (1995), “Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms,” Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 415–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tornatzky, Louis G., and Katherine J. Klein (1982), “Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta-Analysis of Findings,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 29(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tripsas, Mary (1997), “Unraveling the Process of Creative Destruction: Complementary Assets and Incumbent Survival in the Typesetter Industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tushman, Michael L., and Johann Peter Murmann (1998), “Dominant Designs, Technology Cycles, and Organizational Outcomes,” Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 231–266.Google Scholar
  89. Vandecasteele, Bert, and Maggie Geuens (2010), “Motivated Consumer Innovativeness: Concept, Measurement, and Validation,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(4), 308–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. van de Ven, Andrew, and Raghu Garud (1993), “Innovation and Industry Development: The Case of Cochlear Implants,” in R. Burgelman and R. Rosenbloom (Eds.), Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1–46.Google Scholar
  91. Venkatesh, Viswanath (2000), “Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model,” Information Systems Research, 11(4), 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Venkatraman, Meera P., and Linda L. Price (1990), “Differentiating between Cognitive and Sensory Innovativeness: Concepts, Measurement, and Implications,” Journal of Business Research, 20(4), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wade, James (1995), “Dynamics of Organizational Communities and Technological Bandwagons: An Empirical Investigation of Community Evolution in the Microprocessor Market,” Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wade, James (1996), “A Community-Level Analysis of Sources and Rates of Technological Variation in the Microprocessor Market,” Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1218–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wall, Robert (2009), “Air France Defends 1330 Pitot Tube Actions” (accessed August 3, 2013) [available at].Google Scholar
  96. Wheelwright, Steven C., and Kim B. Clark (1992), Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality, New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  97. Wilton, Peter C., and John G. Myers (1986), “Assessment Effects in Information Utilization Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 469–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wu, Jen-Her, and Shu-Ching Wang (2005), “What Drives Mobile Commerce? An Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model,” Information & Management, 42(5), 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yang, Zhilin, Shaohan Cai, Zheng Zhou, and Nan Zhou (2005), “Development and Validation of an Instrument to Measure User Perceived Service Quality of Information Presenting Web Portals,” Information & Management, 42(4), 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hubert Gatignon, David Gotteland and Christophe Haon 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hubert Gatignon
    • 1
  • David Gotteland
    • 2
  • Christophe Haon
    • 2
  1. 1.INSEADSorbonne UniversitésFrance
  2. 2.Grenoble Ecole de ManagementFrance

Personalised recommendations